Bush was so much more qualified, he was a war veteran, and had lots of politcal experience.. Clinton was governer of Arkansas... Clinton only won because he was "advertised" better, and because of Perot...
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Would clinton have won 92 if Perot didn't run and take 19% ?
And because Bush is a corrupt dick. Just fyi.Smitty5613 wrote:
Bush was so much more qualified, he was a war veteran, and had lots of politcal experience.. Clinton was governer of Arkansas... Clinton only won because he was "advertised" better, and because of Perot...
YA...just like every politician. fyi.jonsimon wrote:
And because Bush is a corrupt dick. Just fyi.
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-05-03 19:16:36)
Most, certainly. Some are just dicks, and some are just corrupt.usmarine2005 wrote:
YA...just like every politician. fyi.jonsimon wrote:
And because Bush is a corrupt dick. Just fyi.
Last edited by jonsimon (2007-05-03 19:19:16)
Bush Sr. ??jonsimon wrote:
And because Bush is a corrupt dick. Just fyi.Smitty5613 wrote:
Bush was so much more qualified, he was a war veteran, and had lots of politcal experience.. Clinton was governer of Arkansas... Clinton only won because he was "advertised" better, and because of Perot...
Well yeah, the first Bush did some really shady shit as the director of the CIA.
2008???Turquoise wrote:
Well yeah, the first Bush did some really shady shit as the director of the CIA.
huh?...
Or it could be because of his public speaking skills. People vote based on charisma as well, which is partly why JFK did so well. Clinton was kinda notorious for being able to speak off the cuff without a prompter and actually know wtf he was talking about.Smitty5613 wrote:
Bush was so much more qualified, he was a war veteran, and had lots of politcal experience.. Clinton was governer of Arkansas... Clinton only won because he was "advertised" better, and because of Perot...
Or it could be because people liked his policies, too.
Like sell weapons? Anyone in the gun trade isn't fit to determine foreign policy. That is, unless you prefer war and death.Turquoise wrote:
Well yeah, the first Bush did some really shady shit as the director of the CIA.
Well, I agree. The problem is that the war machine runs our government. The U.S., U.K., Russian, Chinese, and French governments are the 5 largest participants in the illegal arms trade.jonsimon wrote:
Like sell weapons? Anyone in the gun trade isn't fit to determine foreign policy. That is, unless you prefer war and death.Turquoise wrote:
Well yeah, the first Bush did some really shady shit as the director of the CIA.
War runs most of the First World in one way or another, so it's only natural that a warmongering CIA head would become president at some point.
1. I wonder how many of the people here actually remember when George H. W. Bush was in office. Hell, most of us here weren't even alive when he was the director of the CIA. It was a different time, different standards.
2. We spent a week on this very subject in one of my polisci classes in college. We came to the conclusion that, yes, Perot was the reason Clinton won. Perot pulled too many voters in too many highly republican states for Bush to overtake Clinton in states he would have won handily in a 2 serious candidate election.
2. We spent a week on this very subject in one of my polisci classes in college. We came to the conclusion that, yes, Perot was the reason Clinton won. Perot pulled too many voters in too many highly republican states for Bush to overtake Clinton in states he would have won handily in a 2 serious candidate election.
Bush Sr. at least had some street cred being CIA and Vice President. He also made the boner move of having Dan Quayle as his Vice President.
As for the griping of "CLINTON WUZ ONLY GOVERNOR!!!!!11," no shit? So was Bush Jr. Seems like one left us with quite a bit of money in our treasury (someone will attempt to rebut this with IT WAS REAGAN!!!11) and the other one emptied it, among other things.
As for the griping of "CLINTON WUZ ONLY GOVERNOR!!!!!11," no shit? So was Bush Jr. Seems like one left us with quite a bit of money in our treasury (someone will attempt to rebut this with IT WAS REAGAN!!!11) and the other one emptied it, among other things.
Whos approval rating was in the 90's? 1990's? 90 approval points? After DesertStorm Yes, but Bush Sr. approval rating dropped down to as low as 32%. Leading way to Slick Willie getting in the Whitehouse in 1992.BN wrote:
You have to tip your hat to Clinton, Carville, Begala, etc . They did beat an incumbent who’s approval rating was up in the 90’s
i wont say reagan, but i will say that clinton cut the military drastically, and to save even more money he pretty much all but slaughtered human intelligent resources for the cia, leaving that section of the agency pretty much limp dicked for a decade.Sanjaya wrote:
Bush Sr. at least had some street cred being CIA and Vice President. He also made the boner move of having Dan Quayle as his Vice President.
As for the griping of "CLINTON WUZ ONLY GOVERNOR!!!!!11," no shit? So was Bush Jr. Seems like one left us with quite a bit of money in our treasury (someone will attempt to rebut this with IT WAS REAGAN!!!11) and the other one emptied it, among other things.
there were other areas that were pretty good, but those two specifically leave a bitter taste in my mouth.
The economy was improving towards the end of Bush Sr. Clinton was given a head start. Then he preceded to do as Parker has just stated.^^^^
...and if he didn't, he wasn't doing his job.Turquoise wrote:
Well yeah, the first Bush did some really shady shit as the director of the CIA.
The macro-factor in voter turnout is the fact that there is little ideological space between the two main parties (center-right Democrats and moderate to far-right Republicans) running. It really is like turning the darkening knob on the toaster when you push buttons in the voting booth. Media and propoganda tries to make them into wildly different people, but those getting into power are actually very close ideologically, and it is felt in a way you can't put your finger on for most people. The US has one of the lowest voter participation rates in the world. Americans also tend to vote based on just a few key issues and don't try to understand party goals or platforms.
This is one thing I realized with the "charting of BF2s members", many thought they were "conservatives" and were disappointed in their scores when they fell into the left camp, some even becoming angry at the test for not asking questions about war or religious issues. They didn't realize that the Republican or conservative agenda in the US didn't really have much to do with religion or war, that those things are poll-grabbing issues and not the actual party platform or goals. Those conservatives with a good understanding of real conservative values scored well to the right, but there was just a few, far less than the number I catch parroting talking points on these boards.
This is one thing I realized with the "charting of BF2s members", many thought they were "conservatives" and were disappointed in their scores when they fell into the left camp, some even becoming angry at the test for not asking questions about war or religious issues. They didn't realize that the Republican or conservative agenda in the US didn't really have much to do with religion or war, that those things are poll-grabbing issues and not the actual party platform or goals. Those conservatives with a good understanding of real conservative values scored well to the right, but there was just a few, far less than the number I catch parroting talking points on these boards.
I am aware of that but well done you for pointing it outCC-Marley wrote:
Whos approval rating was in the 90's? 1990's? 90 approval points? After DesertStorm Yes, but Bush Sr. approval rating dropped down to as low as 32%. Leading way to Slick Willie getting in the Whitehouse in 1992.BN wrote:
You have to tip your hat to Clinton, Carville, Begala, etc . They did beat an incumbent who’s approval rating was up in the 90’s
owned sans lubeTurquoise wrote:
Actually, Gore stopped the recounts. He had the power to push for more, but he respectfully conceded.RECONDO67 wrote:
And Bush won because he's brother was the governor of Florida and if you recall he stopped the recountHunter/Jumper wrote:
clinton won ONLY because of Perot Fact !
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Would clinton have won 92 if Perot didn't run and take 19% ?